Found another site for an organization that thinks video game violence is inappropriate, especially for children. Lion and Lamb puts video games in the same category as drinking and driving, smoking, and pollution. They advocate that there was a time when these "bad" things were also considered "cool" and they are attempting to change society's views on violent video games to make them socially unacceptable. Interesting point of view, but in their argument for why violent games are so bad for children they talk about how kids are constantly "being enticed to watch or participate in some act of make-believe violence." My question is: before video games, didn't kids role play violent behavior? Even being the "good little girl" that I was, I regularly played cops and robbers with the neighborhood kids. Then when we got older we moved on to laser tag. My point is we were active participants in the make-believe violence. So which is better, to physically run around attempting to shoot your brother or to shoot an opponent on a Television screen where the blood looks a little more life like?
I went shopping for a toy gun a few weeks ago for a Halloween costume and I had to go to 5 stores before I found one, and that was a water gun. Many stores said they don't sell toy guns, but these are the same stores that sell violent video games. It seems that role-playing violence is politically incorrect (no doubt in reaction to school shootings) but video games have taken its place.
One last question: is violent behavior a natural developmental phase children need to go through to in order to process the ideas of good vs. evil and death?